This is a good resource, but I\'d like to see a much more thorough breakdown, within each agency. Like I\'d really want to see exactly how my $ gets distributed. And then, I\'d like to say why I disagree. When I buy an Apple product, I don\'t care about specifics. I just know I get a good product. But, when I pay for govt. services, I get inefficient, crappy products. So, in a way I\'d like to know what not to buy...

It\'s not like I am hiding it ;)

Ralph, of course I agree with you that there will be individuals and entities who stand to gain or lose as a result of how a government's actions are performed. I don't think that this is always a bad thing. Under our current system, our legislative bodies basically act as restrictive bounds-setting agents on private enterprise and the lives of individuals. To prevent these activities, corporations enlist the help of lobbying groups, individuals organize into labor unions, etc. All this funnels money into government for all the wrong reasons.

If government's functions were restricted to being an arbiter of legal disputes, a protector of individual liberties, and to have the ability to defend us from foreign and domestic military threats, then I don't think the money channeled into/out of government would be problematic. The ways in which this money would be collected can also be done in non-coercive ways. For more on this, please read The Nature of Government and Government Financing in a Free Society - both essays by Ayn Rand may be found in The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet).

I am using slicehost.com. But, if you host there, you\'ll need to really understand unix/linux internals and how to set up stuff on your own. If you want something simpler, I\'d suggest 1and1.com They are really good for what you are trying to do.

Let me begin by saying that we are all born with the potential to 'touch the moon' - or at least to aspire to it.

Every living being's fundamental priority is survival - from the most trivial single-celled organism to the most complex: homo sapiens - i.e. you and I. For humans, survival consists of two parts: physiological and psychological. They are not mutually exclusive or separate. The two parts are interrelated and without either, a human being is not truly alive.

In the rest of the animal kingdom, survival is a guaranteed adaptation. Take for example a protozoan. It completely lacks the "psychological" aspect, while its physiological survival is guaranteed through genetics. That is, the *actions* it takes to survive are pre-programmed into its DNA. For advanced organisms (for the sake of discussion let us talk of mammals), the actions of survival are at a high level a combination of genetics and learned behavior. That is, a lion, or a gazelle, or any other mammal, gets some of its survival mechanics through DNA, and most are taught to it by its parent(s).

Much unlike for the rest of the animal kingdom, neither the physiological, nor the psychological modes of the survival of a human being are a guarantee. Surely, as a mammal, we inherit some through genetics - most of this involves the activities of the autonomous nervous system. Likewise, as a mammal, we have the ability to obtain some of our learned behaviors from our parents. But, the rest of it comes from our unique ability to form, retain, and use to our advantage (or disadvantage), the concepts we form about the outside world. Ultimately, our lives, unlike the lives of essentially any other living being , are truly "in our hands" (with the control of our brain, of course). Every mammal to some degree, exhibits the ability to form concepts. But, no other mammal is able to literally touch the moon.

This brings me to the subject of psychological survival, which of course is highly dependent on the mechanisms of our happiness. I posit, and am supported by a plurality of evidence, that our happiness, and thus our survival, depends very much on what we value and what virtuous activities we partake in to attain those values. Our happiness is completely dependent on picking the correct values and executing every possible action in their attainment. Again, the evidence is there, if you choose to question/research this concept.

It follows that it is impossible to take a defeatist view on life, without effecting survival or survivability. Every action we take in the pursuit of incorrect or misplaced values effects our survival and eventually leads to death - both psychological and physiological.

The reason why some take a more defeatist/"realist" view on life (I am not a fan of Plato), is that they choose and execute on incorrect values (incorrect in that they don't ensure survival - but rather, lead to death). Many who take such views will blame their upbringing, their parents, or other combinations of excuses for their inability or lack of will to touch the moon. All of us are born with the potential for both the will and the ability to touch the moon. Though not an excuse, society - comprised of elements, such as our educational institutions, our parents, our neighborhoods, our cultural upbringing, religion - often shows us incorrect values to adopt and place at the top of our list. It is our duty to sort those values in ascending order - not allow others to do it for us. Those of us who can do it best, can survive the longest and lead the most productive and rewarding lives -- HAPPIEST LIVES.

You are right, it is a "personality manifestation." And the personalities that choose to sit on the couch are the ones who eventually become obese and die. Action is the only way a human being can survive. Action in the attainment of the correct values equates to true survival.

In response to 1st argument:
I disagree with you here. There are issues of implementation, but not issues of fundamentals. Your argument here is clearly with the conclusion of my post. Let me begin with the definition of the word "corporatism": the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. Surely, you must agree that this is the current state of affairs in the United States. The state controlled is ours, the large interest groups are corporations, labor unions, and other such groups. Granted, the control is implicit. The control I speak of presents itself in the form of lobbying, election financing, candidate selection, and other equally duplicitous means. The reason that the means are duplicitous is that they all produce the ends of having elected officials create and pass legislation that favors the groups in question - at the expense of the politicians' strict adherence to the Constitution in protecting the rights of *individuals* and being accountable to *individual* citizens, vs. corporations, labor unions, and other such groups. Under our current system of interventionist, protectionist, and overwhelmingly bloated government, this of course is impossible. Which is why, to some degree you are right... the actions (or rather, the inaction) of the people have *allowed* this system to come about have brought about the current state of the Union. And, as a result each of us is suffering - with or without our knowledge. Sure, the US is still a very good place to live. My concern, however is not whether it is *still* a good place, but whether it will remain so for long.

In response to the 2nd argument:
You are mostly right here. The politicians are "put on the ballot" by political parties, that campaign to protect the rights of groups, vs the rights of individuals. And therein lies the central problem. The minority party, which does the latter - the Libertarians - are thankfully gaining some ground, not without the help of the Tea Party movement. It is not that candidates should self-sponsor themselves - it is that a renewed platform of individualism (on which this country was founded) should present itself and help Libertarians (or a similarly-inclined) party to rise to the limelight. This whole notion of the two party system, with neither party doing any good for us, is stale and hasn't solved any of our problems.

As a Capitalist who loves political humor, I had a *really* good laugh while watching this =) When will our politicians get the gist? Or, should I just ask "Who's John Galt?"